Skip to main content
Glama
adecubed

gigamail

by adecubed
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

send_mail

Destructive

Send a new email from your GigaMail account using a two-phase approval flow: call once to get a preview and request ID, then call again with that ID after a human approves to execute.

Instructions

Send a new email from the user's account. TWO-PHASE, HUMAN-APPROVED: the first call (no request_id) executes nothing — it returns status=approval_required with a preview of exactly what would happen and a request_id. A human approves out of band (GigaMail console, CLI or Telegram, behind Windows Hello / Touch ID); the second call with that request_id executes the payload that was approved (the approved arguments, not the ones passed the second time). Requests expire (default 15 min); identical pending requests are deduplicated; more than 20 requests/hour per tool are refused (status=rate_limited). Every phase is written to the audit log. The preview shows from, every recipient as an address (never a display name) with an explicit/may_expand flag, subject and body. On execution returns the provider result: {success, provider_result {requested, accepted, ...}} — SMTP reports per-recipient acceptance, Microsoft Graph only an HTTP 202 (delivery not verified per recipient). Irreversible once sent.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoCC addresses.
toYesRecipient address(es), comma-separated. Prefer explicit addresses ('a@b.it'); a bare name or group alias may be expanded by the provider to more recipients than previewed (flagged as may_expand).
bccNoBCC addresses.
bodyYesPlain-text body, sent as-is.
subjectYesSubject line.
account_idNoAccount to operate on (integer id from list_accounts). Omit or null = the user's active account.
request_idNoOmit on the first call. On the first call the tool does NOT execute: it returns status=approval_required, a preview and a request_id. A human must approve that request_id out of band (GigaMail console, `gigamail approvals approve`, or Telegram — all behind Windows Hello / Touch ID). Then call again with the same request_id to execute. The agent cannot approve; repeating the call without approval just returns awaiting_approval.
attachmentsNoFile names to attach, as shown by list_knowledge_files. ONLY files registered in the account identity can be attached: an arbitrary path is not accepted. A name that matches nothing aborts the request instead of sending the mail without it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changedv0.3.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / account_id / description
      Added value: +"Account to operate on (integer id from list_accounts). Omit or null = the user's active account."
    • addedInput schema / properties / attachments
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "File names to attach, as shown by list_knowledge_files. ONLY files registered in the account identity can be attached: an arbitrary path is not accepted. A name that matches nothing aborts the request instead of sending the mail without it.",
+  "title": "Attachments"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / bcc / description
      Added value: +"BCC addresses."
    • addedInput schema / properties / body / description
      Added value: +"Plain-text body, sent as-is."
    • addedInput schema / properties / cc / description
      Added value: +"CC addresses."
    • addedInput schema / properties / request_id / description
      Added value: +"Omit on the first call. On the first call the tool does NOT execute: it returns status=approval_required, a preview and a request_id. A human must approve that request_id out of band (GigaMail console, `gigamail approvals approve`, or Telegram — all behind Windows Hello / Touch ID). Then call again with the same request_id to execute. The agent cannot approve; repeating the call without approval just returns awaiting_approval."
    • addedInput schema / properties / subject / description
      Added value: +"Subject line."
    • addedInput schema / properties / to / description
      Added value: +"Recipient address(es), comma-separated. Prefer explicit addresses ('a@b.it'); a bare name or group alias may be expanded by the provider to more recipients than previewed (flagged as may_expand)."
  2. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, and the description reinforces and extends this by stating 'Irreversible once sent.' It discloses the two-phase approval behavior, that the first call executes nothing, that requests expire and are deduplicated, that rate limiting applies, and that all phases are audited. It also explains provider-specific behavior (SMTP per-recipient vs Graph HTTP 202). This goes well beyond the annotations and provides deep behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is lengthy but every sentence conveys critical operational information. It opens with the core purpose and the two-phase approval, then layers details on expiration, dedup, rate limits, audit, preview, and return format. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though a bit dense; no sentence is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (two-phase, human approval, irreversibility, provider variance), the description covers all necessary aspects: the flow, constraints, return statuses (approval_required, awaiting_approval, rate_limited), the preview contents, and the provider-specific response differences. There is no output schema, so the description compensates by explaining the return structure. An agent can correctly invoke and interpret the tool based on this text alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions (e.g., request_id explains the two-phase flow, to explains may_expand, attachments restrict to registered files). The tool description adds context on how parameters interact (e.g., 'the approved arguments, not the ones passed the second time') and the preview contents. This adds meaningful value beyond the schema, though the schema already carries much of the load.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Send a new email from the user's account' — a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by detailing the two-phase approval flow, which is unique to this tool among the listed siblings. It also clarifies that it is for new emails, separating it from reply_mail.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to call each phase (first call without request_id, second with it), and states that the agent cannot approve, so it should not expect completion without human approval. It also mentions dedup, rate limits, and expiration. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like reply_mail or delete_message, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/adecubed/gigamail'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server